Analysis
After the second round of negotiations on Ukraine in Saudi Arabia, the United States announced on Tuesday a security agreement between Moscow and Kiev in the Black Sea. Ukraine does not seem to be winning this outcome, while Russia has set several conditions. In addition, the three players disagree on the Zaporizhzhia plant. France 24 takes stock.
Published : 27/03/2025
By: Jean-Luc MOUNIER
FRANCE24
Several points of disagreement persist between the United States, Ukraine and Russia. © AP
In the Black Sea, "Russia wins in every way"
After several days of negotiations in Saudi Arabia, separately with Ukraine and Russia, the United States said on Tuesday 25 March that the two countries had agreed to "ensure the safety of navigation, to suppress the use of force and to prevent the use of commercial vessels for military objectives in the Black Sea".
But this agreement seems at first glance to be mainly beneficial to Moscow, as several experts have pointed out in the media in recent days. Patrick Martin-Genier, a professor at Sciences-Po Paris and at the National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilizations (Inalco), says the same thing: "Russia is a winner from all points of view," he believes. "The Black Sea is already won by Ukraine, it is Kiev that has military control over it. So with a ceasefire, even a temporary one, Russia is the winner."
Kiev has, in fact, defeated the Russian fleet on the Black Sea, even managing to destroy some 30% of Russian naval capabilities in this area in a few months of 2024, as detailed in a note from Institut Montaigne.
Under these conditions, the agreement proposed by Washington disadvantages Ukraine, whose "ability to strike Russian military structures in the Black Sea was their only advantage", as Alessio Patalano, a specialist in naval history and professor at King's College London, explained to Mediapart.
The negotiations in Riyadh are also "a diplomatic and strategic success" for Russia, Martin-Genier continues, because they should allow Moscow – after withdrawing from the grain agreement in 2023 – to resume its grain and grain exports: "Russia wants this resumption to be able to directly export its products to the Global South and Africa – where Moscow has economic interests."
"It's stuck" over the management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
The fate of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is a sticking point between the parties to the negotiations for a truce in Ukraine. The Ukrainian plant, which has been occupied by Russian forces since the first days of the invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, has been a topic of discussion between Washington, Moscow and Kiev for more than a week. And the three countries disagree over the future of Europe's largest power plant – which supplied 20% of Ukraine's energy before the war.
Donald Trump suggested, during a call on March 20, with Volodymyr Zelensky, that the United States take "possession" of Ukrainian power plants – including the occupied Zaporizhzhia plant. A proposal that "would constitute the best possible protection and support", according to White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.
But Ukraine does not see it that way: the very next day, Volodymyr Zelensky rejected his American counterpart. "We will not discuss it. We have 15 nuclear reactors in operation today. All this belongs to our state," said the Ukrainian president, who said, however, that he was listening if the Americans "want to modernize, invest" in the Zaporizhzhia plant.
See alsoUkraine: Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant at the heart of peace negotiations
Russia, for its part, refused on 25 March to allow this nuclear facility to escape its control. "Transferring the Zaporizhzhia plant under the control of Ukraine or another country is impossible," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
In the end, no one agrees on the subject. "It's stuck" everywhere, admits Patrick Martin-Genier; which sums up the stakes for the three countries: "The American president is still in his perspective of doing business. Moscow considers that this plant is now managed by the Russians – even though it is legally located in an occupied region and therefore normally under the Ukrainian authorities. Finally, on the Kiev side, they don't want to let the idea that it is selling its greatest nuclear strategic asset to the United States be given credence."
In the Black Sea, "Russia wins in every way"
After several days of negotiations in Saudi Arabia, separately with Ukraine and Russia, the United States said on Tuesday 25 March that the two countries had agreed to "ensure the safety of navigation, to suppress the use of force and to prevent the use of commercial vessels for military objectives in the Black Sea".
But this agreement seems at first glance to be mainly beneficial to Moscow, as several experts have pointed out in the media in recent days. Patrick Martin-Genier, a professor at Sciences-Po Paris and at the National Institute of Oriental Languages and Civilizations (Inalco), says the same thing: "Russia is a winner from all points of view," he believes. "The Black Sea is already won by Ukraine, it is Kiev that has military control over it. So with a ceasefire, even a temporary one, Russia is the winner."
Kiev has, in fact, defeated the Russian fleet on the Black Sea, even managing to destroy some 30% of Russian naval capabilities in this area in a few months of 2024, as detailed in a note from Institut Montaigne.
Under these conditions, the agreement proposed by Washington disadvantages Ukraine, whose "ability to strike Russian military structures in the Black Sea was their only advantage", as Alessio Patalano, a specialist in naval history and professor at King's College London, explained to Mediapart.
The negotiations in Riyadh are also "a diplomatic and strategic success" for Russia, Martin-Genier continues, because they should allow Moscow – after withdrawing from the grain agreement in 2023 – to resume its grain and grain exports: "Russia wants this resumption to be able to directly export its products to the Global South and Africa – where Moscow has economic interests."
"It's stuck" over the management of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant
The fate of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant is a sticking point between the parties to the negotiations for a truce in Ukraine. The Ukrainian plant, which has been occupied by Russian forces since the first days of the invasion of Ukraine more than three years ago, has been a topic of discussion between Washington, Moscow and Kiev for more than a week. And the three countries disagree over the future of Europe's largest power plant – which supplied 20% of Ukraine's energy before the war.
Donald Trump suggested, during a call on March 20, with Volodymyr Zelensky, that the United States take "possession" of Ukrainian power plants – including the occupied Zaporizhzhia plant. A proposal that "would constitute the best possible protection and support", according to White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.
But Ukraine does not see it that way: the very next day, Volodymyr Zelensky rejected his American counterpart. "We will not discuss it. We have 15 nuclear reactors in operation today. All this belongs to our state," said the Ukrainian president, who said, however, that he was listening if the Americans "want to modernize, invest" in the Zaporizhzhia plant.
See alsoUkraine: Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant at the heart of peace negotiations
Russia, for its part, refused on 25 March to allow this nuclear facility to escape its control. "Transferring the Zaporizhzhia plant under the control of Ukraine or another country is impossible," the Russian Foreign Ministry said.
In the end, no one agrees on the subject. "It's stuck" everywhere, admits Patrick Martin-Genier; which sums up the stakes for the three countries: "The American president is still in his perspective of doing business. Moscow considers that this plant is now managed by the Russians – even though it is legally located in an occupied region and therefore normally under the Ukrainian authorities. Finally, on the Kiev side, they don't want to let the idea that it is selling its greatest nuclear strategic asset to the United States be given credence."
Russia's other demands "to play for time"
Barely announced, the agreement resulting from the latest talks in Saudi Arabia was submitted to conditions by Russia. Moscow hopes to obtain several concessions to meet its commitments. Starting with an easing of Western restrictions on Russia's state-owned agricultural bank Rosselkhozbank, as well as other Russian financial institutions related to food and fertilizers.
In particular, Russia wants its institutions to be reintegrated into the Swift international interbank settlement system. Moscow has been excluded from this most widely used financial information transfer network in the world for more than three years, a sanction that was decided by the West against it after the invasion of Ukraine.
To be readWhat is the Swift system from which Russia could be excluded?
"Russians have not been able to carry out their international economic transactions since 2022, and agricultural exports – especially fertilizers – are essential for Russia from an economic and strategic point of view," explains Patrick Martin-Genier. Washington seems inclined to put Moscow back on track with the international banking exchange system, as evidenced by the White House statement issued on March 25 after the negotiations in Riyadh.
It states that "the United States will help restore Russia's access to the global market for agricultural and fertilizer exports, reduce marine insurance costs, and improve access to ports and payment systems for these transactions." This position does not seem to be shared by the European Union, which has imposed several rounds of sanctions on Russia in recent years. And a reconnection of Moscow to Swift cannot be done without the agreement of the Twenty-Seven.
Responding to Moscow's new demands, an adviser to President Emmanuel Macron replied during a telephone briefing with journalists on 25 March that "there are no European sanctions on Russian agricultural products". Before adding: "The Russians can always opportunistically condition partial progress towards a ceasefire on the lifting of certain sanctions", but these remain a "necessary instrument of pressure on Russia".
For Patrick Martin-Genier, these new conditions are a way for Moscow to "open up the Russian economy" but also to "play for time": "Vladimir Putin is postponing the deadline for peace, he wants to negotiate everything to his advantage with a ceasefire under conditions. We can see today that this lasting peace is not yet a given."
Disgraced spy and former diplomat: who are the two Russian negotiators on Ukraine?
Analysis
To negotiate in Riyadh with the Americans, Russia has sent Grigory Karasin, a former high-ranking diplomat and expert on the Ukrainian issue, and Sergei Beseda, a former FSB official in charge of intelligence gathering. Two personalities with less political than technical profiles, whose mission will be to advance Moscow's pawns against the Trump administration.
Published: 24/03/2025
FRANCE24
By: Grégoire SAUVAGE
By: Grégoire SAUVAGE
Russian Federation Senator Grigory Karasin speaks to the press during a meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna, Austria, February 24, 2023. © Eva Manhart, AFP
Vladimir Putin personally chose them for the talks on Ukraine that began on Monday 24 March in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Described by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as "Russia's best negotiators", politician Grigory Karasin and former spymaster Sergei Beseda lead the delegation sent by Moscow to defend Russian interests against the American team.
Former Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin, who heads the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, is considered one of the most knowledgeable experts on the Ukrainian issue because of his involvement ten years ago in the drafting of the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements.
"At the time of the Minsk agreements, Grigory Karasin headed several negotiating groups on military, economic and humanitarian issues. He knows every rock in Ukraine and the disputed areas," says Jean de Gliniasty, director of research at Iris. "He is probably one of the best, if not the best, specialist in the Ukrainian question in Russia," adds the former France ambassador to Russia, where he worked with the diplomat.
Adopted between September 2014 and February 2015, these agreements were intended to resolve the conflict between the Ukrainian army and the separatist forces in the Donbass regions, supported by Moscow. In fact, the measures of this 13-point protocol have never been implemented.
To be readIn the Donbass, ten years of war and Russification
"Grigory Karasin has certainly been attached to diplomatic functions linked to the post-Soviet space, but he is also a French-speaking person who has been to Africa and knows the Middle East. He is a bit of a diplomatic guarantor for this team of negotiators," says Igor Delanoë, deputy director of the Franco-Russian Observatory.
A spy to embody the "hard line"
While this profile of a seasoned diplomat seems obvious to lead these talks, the choice of Sergei Beseda has, on the other hand, surprised many. Current advisor to the director of the Russian Security Service (FSB), this officer was in charge of the "fifth service" when the "special operation" in Ukraine was launched by the Kremlin in February 2022. This department is dedicated to gathering intelligence in the countries of the former Soviet Union, including Ukraine.
As such, this general is considered one of the main sources who convinced Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. At that time, the FSB promised a victorious blitzkrieg and the rapid collapse of the government in Kiev due to widespread pro-Russian sentiment in Ukraine. A miscalculation that would get him into serious trouble, according to Russian journalist Andrei Soldatov, a specialist in the country's security services.
To be readThe Russian army, from the illusion of grandeur to the reality on the ground in Ukraine
Sergei Beseda was reportedly the victim of a purge in the "fifth service" and found himself under house arrest. In an article in the independent newspaper The Moscow Times, Andrei Soldatov claims that the former spymaster spent time in Lefortovo prison, a Moscow prison for high-profile inmates under investigation for serious crimes such as "high treason", "terrorism" or "espionage". However, this information has never been confirmed.
Now an adviser to the director of the FSB, "Sergei Beseda represents the Russian deep state and the structure of the security services with the aim of carrying out a process that is above all technical," explains Igor Delanoë.
According to David Teurtrie, a lecturer at the Catholic Institute for Higher Studies and director of the French Observatory of BRICS (OFB), Sergei Besseda, who has been familiar with the Ukrainian issue since 2014, is "a representative of the hard line" in Moscow. Within this team, Grigory Karasin is "the one who can seek compromises while Besseda should maintain firmer positions".
Targeted by Western sanctions since 2014, Sergei Besseda is one of the bête noire of the Kiev regime. In 2023, Kyrylo Budanov, the head of Ukrainian military intelligence, called him a "very problematic" personality who had done "a lot of harm" to Ukraine.
Russia's "caution"
This duo of negotiators, more technical than political, also suggests that "Moscow is trying to give itself an advantage against the Americans who are not at the same level on the Ukrainian issue. However, these talks promise to be very technical. We will talk about infrastructure, power plants, freedom of navigation in the Black Sea," says Jean de Gliniasty.
According to Reuters, citing a source familiar with the talks, the U.S. side is represented by Andrew Peek, a member of the White House National Security Council, and Michael Anton, a State Department official.
While Washington and Kiev are pushing for a "general" ceasefire, Vladimir Putin, whose army is advancing on the ground despite heavy losses, seems to be playing for time, as long as his men have not expelled Ukrainian troops from the Russian border region of Kursk. At this stage, the Kremlin assures that it has only agreed with Washington on a moratorium on the bombing of energy infrastructure.
As a symbol of the differences that need to be bridged in order to reach a truce, the Ukrainian delegation is led by Defence Minister Rustem Umerov. The choice of the two Russian negotiators who, without being second fiddles, "are no longer at the heart of Russian power" shows that "the Kremlin probably has limited objectives with regard to these talks, unlike Washington, which is very optimistic," said David Teurtrie.
To be readThe "detoxification" of Russia, as simple as a phone call between Putin and Trump?
"The profile of these negotiators shows Russia's caution. The process is taken seriously by Moscow but if it fails politically, it does not compromise the resumption of dialogue," said Igor Delanoë. This hypothesis is more difficult to envisage if higher-ranking personalities are involved, adds the expert.
Basically, Moscow's position on the conflict has remained unchanged. The Kremlin says it wants to tackle the "root causes of the crisis" and force Kiev to recognise Russia's territorial gains and accept a form of neutrality. An unacceptable capitulation from the Ukrainian point of view.
"The Russians are on a ridge line. They must satisfy the Americans because they consider this to be a historic opportunity to reconcile with the United States. So we have to give them a bone to gnaw on," says Jean de Gliniasty. "And at the same time, because they have the advantage on the pitch, they want to buy time and keep scoring points. So they will have to find the point of balance."
In this respect, the maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, desired by the White House, could be a convenient pledge of goodwill to offer the Kremlin. Faced with the superiority of Ukrainian naval drones, the Russian fleet, which has lost 20% of its ships since 2022, has been forced to retreat to the east. In short, Russia is ready to negotiate in Riyadh, especially if it has nothing to lose.
Vladimir Putin personally chose them for the talks on Ukraine that began on Monday 24 March in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Described by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as "Russia's best negotiators", politician Grigory Karasin and former spymaster Sergei Beseda lead the delegation sent by Moscow to defend Russian interests against the American team.
Former Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin, who heads the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, is considered one of the most knowledgeable experts on the Ukrainian issue because of his involvement ten years ago in the drafting of the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements.
"At the time of the Minsk agreements, Grigory Karasin headed several negotiating groups on military, economic and humanitarian issues. He knows every rock in Ukraine and the disputed areas," says Jean de Gliniasty, director of research at Iris. "He is probably one of the best, if not the best, specialist in the Ukrainian question in Russia," adds the former France ambassador to Russia, where he worked with the diplomat.
Adopted between September 2014 and February 2015, these agreements were intended to resolve the conflict between the Ukrainian army and the separatist forces in the Donbass regions, supported by Moscow. In fact, the measures of this 13-point protocol have never been implemented.
To be readIn the Donbass, ten years of war and Russification
"Grigory Karasin has certainly been attached to diplomatic functions linked to the post-Soviet space, but he is also a French-speaking person who has been to Africa and knows the Middle East. He is a bit of a diplomatic guarantor for this team of negotiators," says Igor Delanoë, deputy director of the Franco-Russian Observatory.
A spy to embody the "hard line"
While this profile of a seasoned diplomat seems obvious to lead these talks, the choice of Sergei Beseda has, on the other hand, surprised many. Current advisor to the director of the Russian Security Service (FSB), this officer was in charge of the "fifth service" when the "special operation" in Ukraine was launched by the Kremlin in February 2022. This department is dedicated to gathering intelligence in the countries of the former Soviet Union, including Ukraine.
As such, this general is considered one of the main sources who convinced Vladimir Putin to invade Ukraine. At that time, the FSB promised a victorious blitzkrieg and the rapid collapse of the government in Kiev due to widespread pro-Russian sentiment in Ukraine. A miscalculation that would get him into serious trouble, according to Russian journalist Andrei Soldatov, a specialist in the country's security services.
To be readThe Russian army, from the illusion of grandeur to the reality on the ground in Ukraine
Sergei Beseda was reportedly the victim of a purge in the "fifth service" and found himself under house arrest. In an article in the independent newspaper The Moscow Times, Andrei Soldatov claims that the former spymaster spent time in Lefortovo prison, a Moscow prison for high-profile inmates under investigation for serious crimes such as "high treason", "terrorism" or "espionage". However, this information has never been confirmed.
Now an adviser to the director of the FSB, "Sergei Beseda represents the Russian deep state and the structure of the security services with the aim of carrying out a process that is above all technical," explains Igor Delanoë.
According to David Teurtrie, a lecturer at the Catholic Institute for Higher Studies and director of the French Observatory of BRICS (OFB), Sergei Besseda, who has been familiar with the Ukrainian issue since 2014, is "a representative of the hard line" in Moscow. Within this team, Grigory Karasin is "the one who can seek compromises while Besseda should maintain firmer positions".
Targeted by Western sanctions since 2014, Sergei Besseda is one of the bête noire of the Kiev regime. In 2023, Kyrylo Budanov, the head of Ukrainian military intelligence, called him a "very problematic" personality who had done "a lot of harm" to Ukraine.
Russia's "caution"
This duo of negotiators, more technical than political, also suggests that "Moscow is trying to give itself an advantage against the Americans who are not at the same level on the Ukrainian issue. However, these talks promise to be very technical. We will talk about infrastructure, power plants, freedom of navigation in the Black Sea," says Jean de Gliniasty.
According to Reuters, citing a source familiar with the talks, the U.S. side is represented by Andrew Peek, a member of the White House National Security Council, and Michael Anton, a State Department official.
While Washington and Kiev are pushing for a "general" ceasefire, Vladimir Putin, whose army is advancing on the ground despite heavy losses, seems to be playing for time, as long as his men have not expelled Ukrainian troops from the Russian border region of Kursk. At this stage, the Kremlin assures that it has only agreed with Washington on a moratorium on the bombing of energy infrastructure.
As a symbol of the differences that need to be bridged in order to reach a truce, the Ukrainian delegation is led by Defence Minister Rustem Umerov. The choice of the two Russian negotiators who, without being second fiddles, "are no longer at the heart of Russian power" shows that "the Kremlin probably has limited objectives with regard to these talks, unlike Washington, which is very optimistic," said David Teurtrie.
To be readThe "detoxification" of Russia, as simple as a phone call between Putin and Trump?
"The profile of these negotiators shows Russia's caution. The process is taken seriously by Moscow but if it fails politically, it does not compromise the resumption of dialogue," said Igor Delanoë. This hypothesis is more difficult to envisage if higher-ranking personalities are involved, adds the expert.
Basically, Moscow's position on the conflict has remained unchanged. The Kremlin says it wants to tackle the "root causes of the crisis" and force Kiev to recognise Russia's territorial gains and accept a form of neutrality. An unacceptable capitulation from the Ukrainian point of view.
"The Russians are on a ridge line. They must satisfy the Americans because they consider this to be a historic opportunity to reconcile with the United States. So we have to give them a bone to gnaw on," says Jean de Gliniasty. "And at the same time, because they have the advantage on the pitch, they want to buy time and keep scoring points. So they will have to find the point of balance."
In this respect, the maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, desired by the White House, could be a convenient pledge of goodwill to offer the Kremlin. Faced with the superiority of Ukrainian naval drones, the Russian fleet, which has lost 20% of its ships since 2022, has been forced to retreat to the east. In short, Russia is ready to negotiate in Riyadh, especially if it has nothing to lose.
0
.jpg)
.jpg)
